In my opinion, there's not a lot of innovation when Sony and Microsoft comes with the Move and Natal respectively. The Wii has already gone pretty far in innovation with motion controlled gaming. Sony's Move? It's essentially just a HD Wii. And While Natal looks all nifty and all that, I don't really see how it's gonna have a lot of good games and stuff. All I can think of now is sports games and fighting games on Natal. I thought about what if Street Fighter was Natal supported, but then I thought about how lame that would be because Street Fighter is all about the button pressing combos that take skill and stuff like that(imagine Haidoken-ing toward the screen and having people watching... not cool XD). Personally, I prefer having a controller in my hand.
I'm not dissing Sony and Microsoft, I'm just saying they should stick to what they're good at. They've got great hardcore games(With controllers ) with mostly lack of motion controlled gaming. Wii's already got some pretty good games with motion controlled gaming. I think there shouldn't be so many systems with motion gaming.
What do you think?

So apparently Nintendo is original for getting motion controls even though they've been on arcades and on a game for the Dreamcast a while ago? Honestly, I'll stick with my Eye Camera.

I know Sony Move can be played with the controller or remote while a few separate games will be available for Move. I think it's mostly more than a race of innovation.
.

xfighter1138 : mehhh I know I know... but Nintendo has forwarded the motion control gaming craze, as well as innovate it with Motion Plus.

Nintendo, though not the first with motion controls, is the first to make it cheap enough with plenty enough games everyone will like to make it profitable. Which is why you can find it almost anywhere, making it one of the most profitable game systems of all time. All Sony and Microsoft want to do is to cash in on those profits that Nintendo is making.

xfighter1138 : He's saying innovation, not originality... and I for one don't see any innovation in PlayStation Move either. Natal's innovative, but in the wrong direction. Precise motion control with a controller is what I, and several people to whom I've talked want, not controller-free gaming . Most good games just don't work like that, you still need the buttons and the analog sticks and stuff . I personally think the Wii was enough. It shows how good--and how bad--motion control can be. Now Sony and Microsoft are just trying to cash in on Nintendo's ideas .

xfighter1138 : Though, I do want to add that I want to keep credit to Natal about how it breaks the barrier of controller-ed gaming to people who would usually not want to play games because of controllers. For example, my mom had not wanted to play some good games like Zelda and stuff, only because the controller looked "confusing" to her.
And, Natal also allows gaming without controllers, which does allow several players without buying multiple controllers(something I used to be annoyed about when I first got a game system.)

The only reason motion controls exist in the first place s that nintendo decided that moving around was the new way to game and to attract a broader audience to their market, So the Wii was created. Now Microsoft and sony want to get on the bandwagon with Microsoft making Project Natal and Sony updating their eye-toy. I find the whole idea ridiculous and it will all end in a few years because eye-toy and Natal are going to be flops while Wii will decrease in sales. Yeah it was cool in 2006 but can you really play WOW or MW2 with motion controls.... I didn't think so.

*cough* Power Glove *cough*

Sorry. Random memory there.


I want to see games made like the stuff from the holodecks in Star Trek. Now THOSE would be motion control games. :p

Motion control was a good idea. I don't see why more game designers don't think so. And Nintendo *did* somewhat innovate motion control by inventing the powerglove (thank you for beating me to pointing that out, Surgiac) and I really don't see why the powerglove wasn't thrown into other consoles before the Wii.

But the Wii did it anyway: they made motion control a central part of the console. The PS3 did it to a certain extent with their sixaxis controller, but people just... hate that for some reason. I've never played with the sixaxis, but I don't see why it's *that* bad.

And now people are ripping off the Wii by straight out copying the Wii remote. WHY? THIS IS NOT YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE.

Do you know why I hate Google now? They started off great. A searchbar on a white screen. Then they made search engines for more stuff. Then they made Google Earth, and after that they turned into the new Microsoft.

Why do I tell you this? Because this is the new image of the video games industry, and I hate it. Sony, your strength is processing power and hardware. USE IT! Microsoft, your strength is Xbox Live. USE IT! Let Nintendo appeal to their audience, and you appeal to your audience. YOU WILL MAKE MORE MONEY THIS WAY. IT'S NOT HARD TO FIGURE OUT.

I mean, gosh, I love the Wii just *for* the motion controls. I hate the Xbox, but it's good for Live, and I want to get a PS3 because of its epic, if misunderstood, games. If you do your own thing you'll make money. It's not that difficult.

Also, as an aside to Google, YOUTUBE DOES NOT NEED A FACELIFT EVERY FIVE WEEKS. THIS IS NOT MAKING YOU MONEY!!!

Rarely do I like motion control games. For everything, I prefer a controller. I really hope that these attempts at motion control will fail so that we can stick to controllers. The Wii is the only system that needs motion controls. I say this because it sucks, and I don't want the PS3 and 360 to become HD Wiis. Wii = Shovelware... generally. If Microsoft and Sony can make games like Red Steel 2, then I might get the PS Move. If not, they wasted their money.

Crawldragon : Exactly!!
Rasenganfan2 : I tend to buy only the first party Nintendo games, because those are the best of the system. I honestly don't mind the motion controls that much, but it can be annoying.

Rasenganfan2 : I must say, some *coughfirstpartycough* games incorporate motion control well, like the aforementioned Red Steel 2 (a rarity in that it's actually a good 3rd-party game on Wii ) and Punch-Out!... but most are either not very fun games, or just horribly unresponsive.

Nintendo did it right for the most part...

I really don't see why Microsoft and Sony need to whore in on those profits...

It works for the Wii (because that is its default control)

It will probably just turn into a fugly gimmick with Microsoft's Natal and the whole ball wand stick deal with Sony. I think the majority are just fine with the handheld controls. But then again, I've been wrong before...

Now the Nintendo Vitality Sensor...Thats just plain retarded...

bignatealpha : Maybe when Sony's superior motion controller comes out, some good games will hit? How about a shooting game with better aiming and no gun-shaped controller?

Bobbynibbles : And yet I look at Metroid Prime 3 and the trilogy, and the slew of new games Nintendo has, and I think "People are dissing this? Some games may get it wrong, but these recent releases just feel so smooth". I highly doubt Sony or Microsoft will actually do better.

bignatealpha : But Sony and Microsoft releasing competitive games will make Nintendo work harder at making better games and improving their product.

Bobbynibbles : ...and I have absolutely nothing against that. I'm just saying that I doubt the Move and Kinect will actually do very well.

In my own opinion, Nintendo did the right thing by tacking a second crack at motion control with the Wii (The first attempt being the failure known as the power glove). The bonus and the attention came when hospitals and other health centers started using them to help recover patients, and EVEN retirement homes started using them. For Nintendo, it was like hitting the Jackpot. Sony and Microsoft saw this and they now want to cash in on this market for themselves. Their problem is one word, CONTROLLER. Sure the none controller style motion system is amazing, but it's not going to reach the markets that Nintendo managed to get. Without the controller, it is going to be far harder for those in retirement homes and/or hospitals because of the fact that there is no controller. Also, as a side point, how are they going to do fitness games, like Nintendo did? The addition of a fitness monitor in the original game, Wii Sports, was an unexpected bonus and really helped get the Wii off the ground. And trust me when i say that you can get a work out from playing Wii Sports. So, unless Sony and Microsoft are going to be able to add some sort of fitness game, which i have a hard time seeing with the non-controller motion system, i have a hard time seeing either companies doing as good as Nintendo.

bigNATE : says "And yet I look at Metroid Prime 3 and the trilogy, and the slew of new games Nintendo has, and I think "People are dissing this?"
Well the thing for me is that MP3 is a FPS and those never work right with anything but a keyboard and mouse.
It really doesnt matter to me how smooth the game might be, motion controls are never as precise as standard ones.
I dont care what anyone says, unless you are really fit and can acurately move your arms as delicately as you can your fingers (and anyone that says they can I call bulls***) motion controls are just a gimmick to get exercise and look like a fool.
Games are for entertainment, not exercise. If you want to exercise while gaming get a gosh darn treadmill

In fact, to finish up here is a humorous look at how fail pure motion controls are/will be-
http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20100621

I believe the Wii should make motion control optional, some of us prefer not to move around so much and just sit down and relax while playing video games.